Question

Ford decided not to recall the Pinto when it

found the fuel tank design flaw but to simply
pay the lawsuits when people died instead.
What aspect of paying the lawsuit made
paying them preferable?
(1 point)
The recall didn't fix the problem.
O The law dictated that Ford pay them.
Paying the lawsuit was the more ethical
choice.
O The lawsuits were more cost effective.

Answer 1

Ford conducted a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that paying out lawsuits would be more cost-effective than recalling the Pinto to fix the fuel tank design flaw, prioritizing short-term financials over ethical considerations.

Step-by-step explanation:

During the case of the Ford Pinto, the decision not to recall the vehicle with the fuel tank design flaw was based on a cost-benefit analysis. Ford calculated that paying out lawsuits for the anticipated number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities would be less expensive than conducting a recall to fix the problem. This reveals a focus on short-term financial savings over the more ethical choice of ensuring customer safety. Ultimately, this decision was made at the expense of consumer safety and demonstrated a prioritization of cost-effectiveness over ethical concerns and long-term brand reputation.